The Dept of the Navy has issued it's Record of Decision on JV. They still plan to take it from us and the only ways left to stop this is through congress and the courts. Please take the time to go to this link. Especially those from out of state. Cali's reps are well aware of the issue but it is not as well known to the rest of the country.
There are a couple of ways to write your reps, here is a quick link to a pretty easy form , Just fill it out and tell them we support our troops but cannot afford this in these tough economic times http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...046526&type=ML
It only takes a couple minutes to help save what would be lost forever otherwise.
Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
- Coilover88
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:55 pm
- Bronco Info: 1970 EB named Forrest. 8 seasons in Cali---headed for HDRA
- Location: Paso Robles, CA
Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
- Attachments
-
- Untitled.jpg (62.95 KiB) Viewed 431 times
- Becks_Bronco
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:12 pm
- Bronco Info: 96 Eddie Bauer, 5.8
- Location: Antioch
Re: Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
Link doesn't work :/
- ESHALLBETTER
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:49 am
- Bronco Info: 85 class 3, 70's somthing trail bronco.
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
Re: Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
Page you requested not found...
How can we help on this?
How can we help on this?
- Coilover88
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:55 pm
- Bronco Info: 1970 EB named Forrest. 8 seasons in Cali---headed for HDRA
- Location: Paso Robles, CA
Re: Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
Sorry about the bad link. This should get you there.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mai ... 26&type=ML
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mai ... 26&type=ML
- Becks_Bronco
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:12 pm
- Bronco Info: 96 Eddie Bauer, 5.8
- Location: Antioch
Re: Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
For anyone that doesn't want to write something, feel free to use what I wrote. You may want to edit some of it.
This letter is in regards to the marine base at 29 palms expanding into johnsons valley. Off highway recreation areas are becoming scarce. The more you cut back on these areas, the more you are going to force these enthusiasts to use land that is not designated for off highway vehicles. This will cause extra expense in trying to enforce the law.
Also, as a veteran with 7 years military service, I can say with 100% candor that I never even saw 99% of the available land at fort Bragg. The largest marine base in the world at 29 palms simply just does not need the extra land at Johnson's valley. They already have hundreds of thousands of acres of land to train on. Ft. Irwin has absurd amounts of land to train on as well.
The gain in training potential just does not make up for the loss to the public. On top of the fact that we are drawing back forces and operation in the middle eastern theater. Why do they need the land now? Where was this request 10 years ago?
I ask that you take this issue very seriously, and reconsider the expansion of Marine base 29 Palms.
This letter is in regards to the marine base at 29 palms expanding into johnsons valley. Off highway recreation areas are becoming scarce. The more you cut back on these areas, the more you are going to force these enthusiasts to use land that is not designated for off highway vehicles. This will cause extra expense in trying to enforce the law.
Also, as a veteran with 7 years military service, I can say with 100% candor that I never even saw 99% of the available land at fort Bragg. The largest marine base in the world at 29 palms simply just does not need the extra land at Johnson's valley. They already have hundreds of thousands of acres of land to train on. Ft. Irwin has absurd amounts of land to train on as well.
The gain in training potential just does not make up for the loss to the public. On top of the fact that we are drawing back forces and operation in the middle eastern theater. Why do they need the land now? Where was this request 10 years ago?
I ask that you take this issue very seriously, and reconsider the expansion of Marine base 29 Palms.
- Becks_Bronco
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:12 pm
- Bronco Info: 96 Eddie Bauer, 5.8
- Location: Antioch
Re: Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
Tried to keep it short and sweet.
- Becks_Bronco
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:12 pm
- Bronco Info: 96 Eddie Bauer, 5.8
- Location: Antioch
Re: Johnson Valley ROD issued by Dept of Navy
Some more info,
From the ROD:
Under the Preferred Alternative access to and use of approximately 54.6% of the Johnson Valley OHV
Area would be lost, representing a significant impact to recreation. This recreational resource is unique to
the region, given its combination of vast open space, large variety of desert views and scenic vistas, and
unique geologic formations. About 46% of the Johnson Valley OHV Area would be available during
approximately 10 months per year for public access (for the portion designated as a Shared Use Area,
which includes Hartwell Hills, the unique terrain feature known as The Hammers) or all of the year (for
the area not acquired). Even though the Marine Corps, as described and analyzed in the Final EIS, would
be conducting live-fire training in the EMUA approximately 49 weeks each year, the Marine Corps would
consider, on a case-by-case basis, and under strictly limited and controlled conditions, potential use of
portions of the EMUA for major organized OHV race events, if such events can be safely held and do not
affect military training. As training with dud-producing munitions occurs throughout the EMUA, the
areas available for consideration to host organized OHV races would become more limited. Training with
dud-producing munitions throughout the EMUA would eventually lead to range conditions that would
severely limit, if not fully preclude, recreational access. The Preferred Alternative meets the purposes of
EO 11644 to control OHV use to protect resources, promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to
minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The displacement of recreational activities to
the remaining portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area and other OHV areas would impact recreational
opportunities, particularly at areas and routes that would receive the largest relative proportions of the
displaced activities. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would result in significant direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts to recreational resources.
http://www.29palms.marines.mil/Porta...Palms%20CA.pdf
The way I am reading this is ~54% of JV is in the Exclusive Military Use Area (EMUA) and is essentially gone. Although they will consider opening it up for organized races, they also say eventually it will become too unsafe.
The reaming 46% will be open 10 months a year... and from what I can tell will not include live munitions... although I am not 100% sure about that.
From the ROD:
Under the Preferred Alternative access to and use of approximately 54.6% of the Johnson Valley OHV
Area would be lost, representing a significant impact to recreation. This recreational resource is unique to
the region, given its combination of vast open space, large variety of desert views and scenic vistas, and
unique geologic formations. About 46% of the Johnson Valley OHV Area would be available during
approximately 10 months per year for public access (for the portion designated as a Shared Use Area,
which includes Hartwell Hills, the unique terrain feature known as The Hammers) or all of the year (for
the area not acquired). Even though the Marine Corps, as described and analyzed in the Final EIS, would
be conducting live-fire training in the EMUA approximately 49 weeks each year, the Marine Corps would
consider, on a case-by-case basis, and under strictly limited and controlled conditions, potential use of
portions of the EMUA for major organized OHV race events, if such events can be safely held and do not
affect military training. As training with dud-producing munitions occurs throughout the EMUA, the
areas available for consideration to host organized OHV races would become more limited. Training with
dud-producing munitions throughout the EMUA would eventually lead to range conditions that would
severely limit, if not fully preclude, recreational access. The Preferred Alternative meets the purposes of
EO 11644 to control OHV use to protect resources, promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to
minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The displacement of recreational activities to
the remaining portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area and other OHV areas would impact recreational
opportunities, particularly at areas and routes that would receive the largest relative proportions of the
displaced activities. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would result in significant direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts to recreational resources.
http://www.29palms.marines.mil/Porta...Palms%20CA.pdf
The way I am reading this is ~54% of JV is in the Exclusive Military Use Area (EMUA) and is essentially gone. Although they will consider opening it up for organized races, they also say eventually it will become too unsafe.
The reaming 46% will be open 10 months a year... and from what I can tell will not include live munitions... although I am not 100% sure about that.
